Phone Panic Diverts Attention From Youth’s Real Needs
Should young teenagers be banned from using social media? That’s the question being discussed by British MPs debating a bill that proposes the government should decide within a year whether to raise the age children can have social media accounts from 13 to 16. It follows a recent petition on the same topic that garnered nearly 130,000 signatures, which also triggered a debate among MPs.
Actually, MPs have been discussing this topic for a long time. The first mention of social media and harms to young people in the UK in Parliament was in 2007 .
Even back then, MPs were raising concerns about the ease with which children could access harmful material. They emphasised the need for parents to take responsibility for monitoring children’s online activity.
Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.
Sign up for our weekly politics newsletter , delivered every Friday.
Two decades on and the themes have barely changed: concerns over young people being exposed to harmful content; the need for more to be done to protect children. But levels of fear are higher.
In the recent parliamentary debate, MPs voiced concerns about the rising rates of anxiety, depression, eating disorders and even suicide linked to excessive social media use among children.
“What are the credible explanations for this phenomenon – for the worldwide explosion in adolescent mental health problems – if not social media and smartphone use?” asked MP Josh MacAlister , who introduced the bill on children’s safety online. But actually there isn’t consensus among experts on this topic and evidence that social media use is causing mental health issues (rather than just being associated with them) is scant.
I have recently published a book reflecting upon my many years talking to young people about the use of digital technology and exploring the evidence base around online harms. It considers whether the direction that legislation and regulation is taking is in line with what young people call for.
A central theme in this work is that emotion often outweighs evidence in decisions that affect children’s rights and freedoms and how, in some cases, this can lead to young people becoming more vulnerable as a result.
The youth voice in these debates is often quickly dismissed by adults. In the debate held among MPs on the petition calling for social media accounts to be limited to 16-year-olds and over, Tony Vaughan MP said: “When I asked my two boys, aged 14 and ten, whether social media should be banned for children, their answer was predictable: No – of course.” (Many of the other MPs in the chamber also shouted: “No!”)
There was no follow up discussion around why his children thought this. Just a claim that adults disagree and want a ban.
As I explore in my book, while young people rarely think bans are a good thing, they do call for better education. A common request I have heard from young people over many years is the importance of critical thinking on these issues. They want classes that go beyond telling them what is and is not illegal.
They want to be able to ask questions about online harms, and get answers that are constructive and help them understand the risks. And they want to be confident that if something upsetting happens, there are adults they can talk to about it.
They want more adults around them who are informed about online risks and how to mitigate them, and for adults not to “freak out” when teenagers do want to talk about risks online.
It is no surprise that data in my book shows that as young people move into their teenage years they become far less likely to speak to parents about online concerns and turn to their peers instead.
Sometimes young people view adult approaches to “online safety” as more about control and an unwillingness to accept that young adults are growing up and needing independence.
And while age limits around social media use are easy to propose, they are extremely difficult to implement. It’s very tricky to find a way for a 16-year-old to verify their age, and these restrictions are often easy to bypass, too.
What’s more, prohibition isn’t a quick fix. Many years of drugs prohibition have done little to reduce the personal and social harms that can arise from the use of illegal substances.
But attending a recent meeting, when I commented on a news story on this topic, one of my colleagues, who accepted that prohibitive measures rarely work, said: “We need to do something because I can’t get my daughter off her phone.”
It is completely understandable that adults are concerned about what young people are doing online, particularly when it is informed by a constant media narrative of harm. But it is crucial to understand that young people who appreciate the risks, and know they can get help if they are concerned about something online, are more likely to have positive online experiences than those who feel like they have to live their online experiences in secret.
As we can see from the repetitive nature of these debates, if the same issues keep on arising and are not resolved, maybe it is time to consider a different approach. This should start with listening to young people.
Andy Phippen does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.